"You must be more pessimistic! I DEMAND it! I'm serial!"
Posted on 01/28/2007 10:20:27 AM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Later this week in Paris, climate scientists will issue a dire forecast for the planet that warns of slowly rising sea levels and higher temperatures.
But that may be the sugarcoated version.
Early and changeable drafts of their upcoming authoritative report on climate change foresee smaller sea level rises than were projected in 2001 in the last report. Many top U.S. scientists reject these rosier numbers. Those calculations don't include the recent, and dramatic, melt-off of big ice sheets in two crucial locations:
They "don't take into account the gorillas — Greenland and Antarctica," said Ohio State University earth sciences professor Lonnie Thompson, a polar ice specialist. "I think there are unpleasant surprises as we move into the 21st century."
Michael MacCracken, who until 2001 coordinated the official U.S. government reviews of the international climate report on global warming, has fired off a letter of protest over the omission.
The melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are a fairly recent development that has taken scientists by surprise. They don't know how to predict its effects in their computer models. But many fear it will mean the world's coastlines are swamped much earlier than most predict.
Others believe the ice melt is temporary and won't play such a dramatic role.
That debate may be the central one as scientists and bureaucrats from around the world gather in Paris to finish the first of four major global warming reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The panel was created by the United Nations in 1988.
After four days of secret word-by-word editing, the final report will be issued Friday.
The early versions of the report predict that by 2100 the sea level will rise anywhere between 5 and 23 inches. That's far lower than the 20 to 55 inches forecast by 2100 in a study published in the peer-review journal Science this month. Other climate experts, including NASA's James Hansen, predict sea level rise that can be measured by feet more than inches.
The report is also expected to include some kind of proviso that says things could be much worse if ice sheets continue to melt.
The prediction being considered this week by the IPCC is "obviously not the full story because ice sheet decay is something we cannot model right now, but we know it's happening," said Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate panel lead author from Germany who made the larger prediction of up to 55 inches of sea level rise. "A document like that tends to underestimate the risk," he said.
"This will dominate their discussion because there's so much contentiousness about it," said Bob Corell, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a multinational research effort. "If the IPCC comes out with significantly less than one meter (about 39 inches of sea level rise), there will be people in the science community saying we don't think that's a fair reflection of what we know."
In the past, the climate change panel didn't figure there would be large melt of ice in west Antarctica and Greenland this century and didn't factor it into the predictions. Those forecasts were based only on the sea level rise from melting glaciers (which are different from ice sheets) and the physical expansion of water as it warms.
But in 2002, Antarctica's 1,255-square-mile Larsen B ice shelf broke off and disappeared in just 35 days. And recent NASA data shows that Greenland is losing 53 cubic miles of ice each year — twice the rate it was losing in 1996.
Even so, there are questions about how permanent the melting in Greenland and especially Antarctica are, said panel lead author Kevin Trenberth, chief of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.
While he said the melting ice sheets "raise a warning flag," Trenberth said he wonders if "some of this might just be temporary."
University of Alabama at Huntsville professor John Christy said Greenland didn't melt much within the past thousand years when it was warmer than now. Christy, a reviewer of the panel work, is a prominent so-called skeptic. He acknowledges that global warming is real and man-made, but he believes it is not as worrisome as advertised.
Those scientists who say sea level will rise even more are battling a consensus-building structure that routinely issues scientifically cautious global warming reports, scientists say. The IPCC reports have to be unanimous, approved by 154 governments — including the United States and oil-rich countries such as Saudi Arabia — and already published peer-reviewed research done before mid-2006.
Rahmstorf, a physics and oceanography professor at Potsdam University in Germany, says, "In a way, it is one of the strengths of the IPCC to be very conservative and cautious and not overstate any climate change risk."
Yeah - if there's one thing we can trust, it's a bunch of unbiased, non partisan, Marxist scientists backed by the French...
On Friday, we're forecast to have a high of -14F here in Fargo.
Global Warming? BRING IT ON!
It official...WE...ARE...DOOMED!
Predictions about changes in temperature, precip, drought, rainfall were made; and none were borne out. The records of the last century show temperatures rise from the late 1800s to the mid-1930s then decline slightly. Mean annual temps are unchanged. Duration of snow cover increased, contrary to predictions, and the Great Plains were slightly wetter overall, contrary to predictions of greater aridity. Soil moisture levels, a measure of drought vulnerability, are increasing long term, not decreasing, which is opposite to all predictions and beneficial to the land.
Given that the modelling failed where records are best, how much should anyone credit predictions where records are inconsistent and shorter term? If we can't predict what happens in a stable area like the midcontinent, what chance is there that catastrophic scenarios about little understood polar events like snowcap meltoffs are accurate?
Not much I say. (The above information comes from The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming By Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling, jr. Cato Institute, 2000.)
Yes! It seems to have risen one inch.
Incidentally, the collapse of the ice shelf in Antarctica did not contribute to ocean levels at all; ice shrinks when it melts so that the volume of glass full of icewater will not overflow once all the ice melts. Now, if Antarctican ice (referring to continent, not antartic ice) were to melt, that would cause some rise, since some of that ice is supported ABOVE sea level by solid land. But most of that ice would take huge increases in temperature.
Why is James Earl Jones wearing a green turban and earings?
I wish I was five years old and as knowledgeable as I am now, so that I could watch the change in public perception of climate change over the entire century (if I was lucky).
I'll make two predictions for the next decade. I could die tomorrow, but I'll be curious to see if either of these come true.
1. At some time during the next 10 years, there will be a salient climate event. I won't predict what it will be -- the likeliest scenario would be an unprecedented heat wave, but it could be something more subtle, like the final disappearance of Kilimanjaro's glaciers. Whatever "it" is, it will have a symbolic power that will cause a strong shift in public opinion of climate change, where the public will basically say to the scientific community "OK -- we believe, and we're very worried. How are you going to save us from calamity?"
2. A major prominent skeptical voice (could be political, could be scientific) -- one that the United States conservative bloc trusts very strongly -- will repudiate their previous skeptical position, apologize for having been wrong and having promoted erroneous thinking on climate change, and indicate that immediate, major action is necessary.
Start the clock.
As long as the scientists are not also socialists, that's fine with me.
2. A major prominent skeptical voice (could be political, could be scientific) -- one that the United States conservative bloc trusts very strongly -- will repudiate their previous skeptical position, apologize for having been wrong and having promoted erroneous thinking on climate change, and indicate that immediate, major action is necessary.
He will sign his apologia with his left hand instead of his right, since the aliens from V have obviously converted him. :-)
January 29, 2017, here we come!
Pave it over, all of it, and build a new ground floor. Run the utilities underneath and put factories underground. Put farms indoors and air-condition the entire planet.
Climate changes
Men adapt
You are very knowledgable about global warming, so maybe you could answer some questions that I have. I am serious about my appreciation of your expertise.
What is you solution? Enact the draconian step of reducing our Co2 to what level? 1900's 1800's levels? You are sure that this step will save us from global warming?
Your asking us to devote a large chunk of our resources and capital over a very long time to solve this problem. Do you have any numbers on the return in investment? Do we get our money back if it doesn't stop the increase in C02?
Do you use the power of the UN to force India and China the rest of the developing counties to your will? That would be what it would take, global governance with a world wide policing unit that regulated CO2 and energy production, correct?
What are they supposed to use for fuel in the third world countries?
Do we eliminate the methane producing livestock?
Am I way out in leftfield? Billions are fighting over their religion, why would anyone cooperate to reduce Co2 unless they were forced to?
What if it is a good sized meteor, do you still win the bet?
"You must be more pessimistic! I DEMAND it! I'm serial!"
I think your position is prudent. By the way, under standard definitions, the "hockey stick" was not a hoax -- it appears to have been an analysis based on too little data and done with too much adjustment (and the scientists who did it would point out that it was a 1998 study and their methods have improved since). It was overly hyped.
Regarding your "what to spend on" scenario: if you could only live in one house your whole life, how would you best spend your money on its maintenance? Some things require more constant upkeep than others. But would you wait until the roof had holes in it before having it reshingled? Some times it makes sense to spend a little money for long-term benefit before having to spend a lot more money on a crisis.
No, that's not really a climate event. It would sure change international perceptions about our global interconnectivity and interdependence, though.
What is you solution? Enact the draconian step of reducing our Co2 to what level? 1900's 1800's levels? You are sure that this step will save us from global warming?
The pathways that lead to the most carbon emissions reduction with the least economic damage are preferred. I don't think mandated caps will work well -- reminds me of how well Prohibition worked. On the other hand, shared sacrifice (like WWII rationing) might be a way to motivate people -- something like "I installed my four compact fluorescent bulbs today!"
That said, and illustrated, there are immense possibilities for effective energy conservation. That's where I think the President should lead -- and he can point to examples of corporations that have improved their bottom line a lot by being more energy efficient. Why not the country? Then:
More nuclear power
Investments in R&D for a variety of alternate energy technologies -- there won't be a "one fix" solution
Higher vehicle efficiency standards (being done)
Do you have any numbers on the return in investment? Do we get our money back if it doesn't stop the increase in C02?
No, I don't, but I can qualitatively say that increased energy efficiency will save money on energy and reduce CO2 emissions. (There are numerous studies "out there" on this issue.)
Do you use the power of the UN to force India and China the rest of the developing counties to your will?
As much as possible. I think China is going to implode on the environmental issue, actually.
That would be what it would take, global governance with a world wide policing unit that regulated CO2 and energy production, correct?
It's not as difficult as one might think to get international cooperation if nations can be convinced of the need for action. Case in point: the Montreal Protocol. Unfortunately, global warming has a longer time horizon before expectations of imminent catastrophe. If 25% of the Greenland Ice Sheet suddenly broke off and slid into the North Atlantic, you can bet there'd be a call for international action. However, at that point it would be pretty late.
What are they supposed to use for fuel in the third world countries?
Get energy imported from first-world countries, where energy efficiency is much higher.
Do we eliminate the methane producing livestock?
No. Even though it gets press, I don't see methane from livestock as a big issue. Methane from melting bogs in permafrost country is a bigger deal.
Am I way out in leftfield? Billions are fighting over their religion, why would anyone cooperate to reduce Co2 unless they were forced to?
You're not way out in leftfield. It's not an easy issue. But the range of solutions can be laid out, and implementation steps taken, even while other crises are being addressed.
The models I've seen show very little reduction in atmospheric CO2 and very modest decreases in the warming, but at enormous cost.
Can you cite the models or their source?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.